A Comment on the economy and unemployment. (No presidential remarks )

One of the most influential people on the US economy has spoken. Not the president, but the Chairman of the Federal Reserve System, Ben Bernanke. Like his predecessor, Alan Greenspan, Bernanke has great influence with well chosen words. He understands the power, limitations, and authority of each of the government branches as well as the federal Reserve System.

You won't find comments on either presidential candidate here, incumbent or the challenger, but rather a discussion on the economy and Congress. Many people blame the president for just about everything from the price of gas to the traffic jam they are stuck in while the reality is that the president simply does not have that much power. The people that make the changes that affect us are found in other groups, primarily Congress. The recent health care legislation was not passed by the president but Congress. It was the inability of Congress to act in a civilized manner and cooperate in a non-partisan manner that cost this country its valued AAA credit rating as Congress played party politics instead of resolving the major issues to adjust the debt ceiling and have a viable budget.

Breaking news now is that Ben Bernanke, Chairman of the Federal Reserve indicates that if Congress fails to act quickly , the US economy is likely headed back into another recession (I thought we were still in one based upon the current economy and job situation).

  http://www.thenewstribune.com/2012/07/18/2218402/bernanke-recession-likely-if-congress.html

"If Congress doesn't take action by the end of the year, a package of tax cuts adopted during George W. Bush's administration expires, while deep spending cuts kick in. If that happens, the economy would go over a "fiscal cliff." { Note that it was the administration i.e. Congress, not the president.}

Note that Bernanke recognizes the limits on authority on both the Federal Reserve System and Congress. " Bernanke stopped shot of telling Congress how to proceed. He challenged them to think broadly. 'Congress in in charge here, not the Federal Reserve,' he said."

From other sources, " Bernanke noted what the Congressional Budget Office has warned: A recession would occur, and 1.25 million fewer jobs would be created in 2013.


A word about job creation for those that don't appreciate the numbers. It is generally acknowledged that it takes between 200,000 and 250,000 new jobs EVERY MONTH to offset immigration and graduates entering the work force. A quarter of a million new jobs every month JUST TO BREAK EVEN! So when the news reports that last month the economy grew by 115,000 jobs, we are falling further and further behind. It takes 225,000 new jobs to break even and even more to recover those who lost jobs and graduates of the 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 classes. (Yes, I could have simply said 2008 - 2012 but I wanted to list them for the effect of how long a time frame we have to recover.) I can only guess what the new jobs figure would have to be to recover those lost people within the next two years while more new graduates continue to enter the economy but it is a safe bet that we won't hit anything close to the required numbers for a long time. 

As we approach the elections, it is imperative that we vote wisely for people who will speak their conscience and vote according to the issues. All too often today we see votes at both the Federal and State level split along party lines. THAT is what upsets me so greatly. We the people (Nice phrase) voted for representatives to represent US, not a particular party. I am not aiming this at either political party but rather at both. Both sides consistently fail to carry out their sworn duties to represent the people.

Ben Bernanke clearly recognizes that it is on the back of Congress to secure the future of this country. The problem is that Congress is failing at their job. They are so wrapped up in their efforts to have their particular party prevail that they ignore the needs of the people they represent.

Now is the time for people to put serious effort into voting not for one party or another but for people who will vote to represent their people, no matter what the party says. It does happen and I greatly respect those who do so even when I disagree with them.

If we continue voting in party politicians, we have only ourselves to blame for the continuing mess we find ourselves in.

[Note: While I welcome and encourage discussion on both sides, all comments are moderated and political comments in reference to Obama or Romney will not be published so don't bother going there. This is about the economy and Congress.]

What's Wrong with the Affordable Health Care Act

Oh I have tried to ignore the political things and keep focused on the more interesting things to make "Comments on Life" about but I fear I must venture forth into the political realm. Let it be known that I am non-political, I care for neither side of the spectrum. The book, "Wingnuts: How the Lunatic Fringe is Hijacking America" is an excellent resource to begin an understanding of current political affairs. But to today's discussion, "What is wrong with The Affordable Health Care Act".

To analyze it, we must take three main perspectives.

1) The Business Owner - Two main problems of the Act in terms of the business owner.

First, the government allowed exemptions for businesses to not provide coverage. The problem is that it was meant to address places like McDonalds that hie a lot of teen-agers. Instead, every major corporation applied, and apparently got, the exemption. While I cannot be absolutely sure, I strongly suspect that this is a major reason businesses will not hire pull time employees anymore other than managers and supervisors. Besides the obvious payroll saving, having the exemption allows the business to not provide benefits. Bottom line: by obtaining the exemption, the business avoids providing health care.

Second, the government did not require health care coverage but instead set penalties (taxes, whatever you want to call then, that is not the point). In doing so, it allows the businesses to simply choose to pay the penalty tax without providing health care coverage to the employees. It will be cheaper for companies to pay the penalty than to provide health care coverage. Bottom line: by paying a small penalty tax (small compared to the cost of insurance), the business avoids providing health care.

2) The Insurance Industry - The main issue here is that insurance companies are in the business to make money, as any business is. They make money by charging based upon statistical averages and charing accordingly. this is why individual policies are always much more expensive than group insurance which spreads the liability out and is more statistically meaningful. The current Affordable Health Care Plan requires / demands that the insurance companies provide coverage of everyone even though they have pre-existing conditions. Traditionally insurance companies allow pre-existing coverage if there has been no lapse in coverage from the previous policy for more than 30 days. The liability is traded off from one company to another and in the end it works out for all the companies. BUT NOW, a person can find out they are sick with some serious (expensive) illness and get coverage. This is akin to applying for flood damage as the television station reports on hurricane force winds and flooding three blocks away. Currently insurance companies would not provide that coverage but under the current law, they would have to in terms of health care coverage.

b) The government says they cannot raise rates significantly (more on this in a moment). If you owned health care insurance company and you were faced with these demands, what would you do? How long would you expect to stay in business? The business model demanded by the current health care act  is not sustainable by businesses. They will have to raise rates significantly or go out of business ( a distinct possibility).

(Side note: A complicating factor is that people tend to be less healthy as they get older and currently the Baby Boomers which are the largest block of our population are just now turning 64'ish. Demands upon the health care system are about to be the greatest they have ever been! Back to the question, would you want to own a health care insurance company under these conditions?)

3) The Individual - Many issues here. First, Cost have to be covered somewhere, if not by the insurance company, then the patient. we all laugh or groan about how much doctors and hospitals make. We have all heard the stories about the $50 aspirin but if you think like a business person instead of a patient, consider how you pay somebody to receive the shipment on the loading dock, un-package the boxes, distribute the aspirin to various locations, maintain inventory controls and monitor status. All that has to be figured into the cost of the aspirin. Plus there are the miscellaneous charges like janitorial staff and other things that have to be covered in the final bill. We have all seen this at the auto repair shop as they charge various miscellaneous charges for "rags and cleaning materials" or some such charge. Is is simply a way of tracking expenses. Consider how stores offer "Free Shipping" Its not free, its covered somewhere (likely advertising) but it is not free and is built into the cost of the product in some way.

The point I am driving to is that costs have to be covered in some manner. If insurance companies cannot raise their rates (supposedly) then those costs will have to be addressed by the patients when the insurance companies disallow certain costs as they exceed preset limits.

Second - The Act does not say insurance companies cannot raise rates. It says to the effect they cannot raise rates excessively and there is no precise definition of what that means. In  other words, they can raise rates. To be realistic, they have to the minute they have to cover everybody with pre-existing conditions. Expect health care rates to rise. To paraphrase Bill Clinton, "Define excessively."

b) The costs of the sick has to be amortized over the entire group, meaning the healthy help cover the cost of the sick. That is nothing new as that is the way it is today, that is what group rates are all about. But now we will have a lot of sick coming on-board. You may ask, what about the healthy, won't those that don't have coverage now but have to come on board and even things out? Not really. The healthy tend to be the younger people in our society (not always but usually). They also tend to be those without well paying jobs or have priorities that are on other things than health and life insurance. (Hey, young people never get sick, hurt, or die right? So they think.)

Third - The Act does not necessarily provide ADEQUATE health care coverage. I have held jobs that offered health care coverage (especially seen in part-time positions) that are woefully inadequate. Having health care is one thing, having adequate health care is a completely separate issue. I know many people who have health care but with deductibles and co-pays so high that the coverage is almost worthless unless they are seriously hurt in an accident of something.

Fourth - What will be the impact on availability of quality health care if insurance companies tell hospitals and doctors they won't pay the high rates they currently cover. ( I think we can all agree rates are way too high.) Hospitals will lower coverages and eliminate units to maintain efficiency. Students in med school or even prior to that may choose to enter a different profession. If doctors and nurses cannot eventually cover the high costs of medical school, who would choose to enter that profession?

Fifth: What will low income people (most of what used to be called the middle class) do? Well, the Act does not actually require insurance coverage. It simply charges a penalty tax for not having it. The penalty is something like $450 in 2014, $950 in 2015, and $2100 in 2016. Considering that the cost of individual health care with adequate coverage and decent deductibles and copays cost in the area of $700 - $900 a month (yes a month) it will be cheaper to simply pay the penalty tax. than buy coverage. Remember that most people that don't have it lack it because they can't afford it. BTW, i sued to have a friend who had individual health care coverage and when Conseco discontinued writing individual coverage policies (see insurance companies do quite writing policies) he had to get a Blue Cross Blue Shield policy and his rates were $1500 a month! (yes a month!) Another friend in the military couldn't afford to get out as his wife as his wife has serious health issues and he couldn't afford the outside world.

Summary: So what's wrong? The Act actually does not require businesses to provide coverage. They have two ways out, the exemption and the penalty tax ( or whatever you choose to call it). It will be cheaper to not provide coverage than to provide it. They will simply continue to have part time employees instead of dedicated full time workers and will pass the costs of penalties along to the consumer. With rising demand and lower coverage on insurance, hospitals and the medical profession will have to pass along those extra costs to the patient (you and me). Also, no matter what you hear, expect insurance rates to rise, significantly. For the individual, we will should expect higher rates. Also expect those higher rates to come with significantly lower coverage via higher deductibles and higher co-pays. (Read inadequate health care coverage). There is no free lunch, even if the government requires it. People will pay penalty taxes because they don't have insurance instead of buying the things they need in this on-going recession.
   Let's see, business will be paying more taxes, individuals will be paying more taxes, people will have no better coverage than before, potentially less and the government rakes in lots of money!


Solution: I have always been taught that you shouldn't identify a problem without having a solution. So here is mine. (At least a stab at it).

First do we need health care? Yes! Cost have gone through the ceiling literally and it is insane and criminal that in America, one of the world's leaders and political powers, that we have people suffering due to the lack of adequate health care. Other countries outshine us in taking care of their citizens and that is a national disgrace to our country.

The solution? Try the  Nixon Health Care Plan. I know Democrats will hate it because a Republican thought it up just like the Republicans hate the current plan that Democrats thought up and it will never see the light of day due to partisan politics but it is a good start. Not familiar with it? Here is the link to the article, " Nixon's Plan for Health Reform in His Own Words".

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/stories/2009/september/03/nixon-proposal.aspx

Something needs to be done. The Affordable Health Care Act (Obama Care) has serious issues as discussed above. I am sure there are those wingnuts (see above reference) that say nothing should be done but I would hope that some sane and rational educated thought would prevail rather than the emotional rhetoric that is all too prevalent. What happens next is up to us as we go about electing our representatives in Congress.

Life is Funny - Dealing with Socks

A little light hearted but in a way serious thoughts tonight. I was out walking my dogs the other night and talking about things as we walked. I thought about how they walk in bare feet whereas people walk in shoes, a much more preferable way.

But they looked up at me with a puzzled look as if to ask, "if shoes are so comfortable, why do you wear socks?" So I explained that the socks are to help our feet feel better as the shoes protect us form the rock and things on the ground, the socks protect our feet from the roughness of the shoes.

But they looked at me as if to ask, "Is this like those commercials on television where the medicine causes more side effects than the disease?" They gave me that look that made it clear, "If socks are so good, why to you have to wear the rough hem side inside against your feet and the soft smooth part on the outside where not only does it not make you foot feel good but nobody can see it anyway?"

We hear people say, "Its a dog's life." usually meant in a negative way but as I reflect, they don't worry about bills or money, they don't have to worry about where they left their iPhone charger or rechargeable batteries. They eat, sleep, play and all they ask for is a belly rub and some love with an occasional walk. Yep, they sure have it rough.

Father's Day Gift Ideas - 2012

A few comments before I get started. I have noticed that "Comment on Life" has been negative at times and so I will take a more positive approach.

Second - No, I get no kickback for this, I merely want to pass along some ideas that I have enjoyed and might help others out as Father's Day approaches.

So, let me set the stage so to speak. I used to use the standard aerosol shaving cream , like most men. The problem is as it runs low, it gets more and more watery. I have also used the gel shaving aerosol. I find it too slippery and too easy to slide off my hand. Also, you never get any warning that you are about to run out. Where the standard aerosol gets watery, the gel aerosol simply and suddenly quits.

So what is a man to do? I remembered using a shaving brush and shaving soap many years ago and so I began to look at it again only this time I didn't get the cheap drugstore brush. There are two kinds of better brushes - Bagger hair and Boars hair brushes. After some looking around, I decided upon this one.

Deluxe Boar Bristle Shaving Brush with Rosewood Handle & Free Shaving Brush from Parker Safety Razor.
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B004DEXE48/ref=pe_175190_21431760_cs_sce_dp_1

Next I needed so shaving soap. So I started out with Col. Conk Bay Rum Glycerine Shave Soap
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B002JKSP38/ref=pe_175190_21431760_cs_sce_dp_2

So the $64,000 question, How did I liked it? Simply put, I have requested more indifferent fragrances for this Father's Day as I am almost out. Why do I like it so over the "traditional aerosol soaps?

1) It feels better. On those occasions that I have had to go back to aerosol when I travel and don't take my shaving soap, I have found that aerosol shaving creams feel sticky and unpleasant.

2) I love getting a hot shaving cream on my face. After soaking the crush in hot water, I have a hot shave. Sometimes I "treat myself" to a second shave by merely tipping the brush back in the hot water and lathering up again. Sort of a skin relaxer?

3) I can tell when I am about out with no side effects - i.e. no sudden loss of cream or going watery.

Why did I go boar's hair instead of bagger hair? Cost mainly but I love the boars hair brush. Do get a stand as you don't want to set it down with the hair upward when you are though.

Other kinds of soap? Plenty of choices out there. Experiment.

While you are out there, get the shaving cup for the soap also. I improvised with an old mug but it is a little too deep so this year I am asking for the shaving bowl. http://www.amazon.com/Kingsley-Shave-Soap-Bowl-Natural/dp/B00161BEO8/ref=pd_sim_hpc_1

Some may say it is like going back to your grand-gfather's days. Yep. A nice hot relaxing shave. Takes no longer and is always hot. What did I do with the unused aerosol shaving cream cans? They are for when I travel. And they make me appreciate the brush and mug every time I use them.

By the Way - I photography article I read recommend the boar's hair brush for brushing off a DSLR when out in the field. Adorama and B&H Photo even carry one in their photography section.

Adorama - http://www.adorama.com/CPDB.html

B&H
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/61515-REG/Visual_Departures_DB1_Dewitt_s_Boar_Bristle_Brush.html

Rights of Bicyclists on the Road

Perhaps an old on-going issue but as I sat and read the comic strip Frazz today (and the past several) they have delay with bicyclists. (Link to GoComics and the Frazz strip. you can click the left arrow at the top to see previous days of the strip).

So the question is, do you feel bicyclists should have the rights of the road? I would say yes only if they obey ALL the rules. My biggest irritation is that bicyclists tend to "be a vehicle" when they want and "not be a vehicle" when it becomes convenient. In the Frazz strip, the group of bicyclists are blowing through a stop sign, apparently because they are "only a bicycle".  Bicyclists want to ride on the sidewalks and do other things vehicles of the road cannot do (motorcyclists start to fall in this group as they and bicyclists both will weave between cars to get to the head of the line at a stoplight.)

Are all bicyclists bad? No! There are good ones and bad ones just as there are good vehicle operators and bad ones. Sometimes the problem is that the roads are simply not built to accommodate bicycles. In the photo above, there is not enough room for two cars and a bicycle side by side and the cars on this road tend to travel about 55 mph (limit is 50 I think).

As I type this I realized that even I have made a distinction between bicyclists and vehicles, on the road they should all be the same.

Made in China a problem? Whose fault is that?

I am in a position to oversee returns at my job. In the course of the day I have noticed some returns being made solely because of their point of origin, in particular, China. "Made in China" is a sore point for some it appears. I do not want this to be taken as a China bashing post but rather a post asking the American public to look at themselves and their values that drive the market. I have reflected upon that fact and in my musings, I would like to make some observations.

- If made in China is a problem for somebody, why don't they check the point of manufacture BEFORE buying the product and not after?

- How do you survive without products made in China? It seems a large preponderance of products, especially electronics are made there. Either entire assemblies or major components or subassemblies come from there. No televisions are made in North America anymore. Curtis Mathis in Canada ceased operations years ago. and this leads me to the real question -

_ Why did it happen? Why did China become the major manufacturer of so many of our products especially electronics? Many will jump on the cheap labor and the slavery conditions allowed there and in other countries overseas and various economic policies But I want to look at the side of the coin so to speak that nobody really wants to acknowledge.

The reason the Chinese have taken so many of our jobs (as well as other countries) is that the American public / consumer cares about price over all else. I know we are in the midst of a long hard recession and that especially makes consumers look for the biggest bang for their buck but the recession is world wide. One way to help this country is to stimulate jobs in this country. Part of the problem is that the CEOs and Boards of Directors have exported our jobs overseas in order to maintain the greatest return for their stockholders. Greed is the appropriate word for it. Remember, "Every time we export our jobs, we import their poverty."

But the problem is also in part due to the American public's desire to get something "cheap". We want the best looking but not the best value. Artificial Christmas decorations are made in China. Why, because they are cheaper. I am thinking of a company whose name whose name I cannot mention that seems to make a lot of Christmas decorations and other electric products that don't seem to hold up well sand I see a lot of returns. Their products are made in China. I saw one return of a Christmas lights decoration that the consumer wrote on the box, "MADE in CHINA - Give Me a Break!" Couldn't that decoration have been made in America? Sure. Considering the cost of overseas shipment and import duties etc, it seems it could have been made in America at less cost (but not necessarily 'cheaper') with a better quality and have been very competitive with the "Made in China"product. But its not. I am sure somebody will point out start up manufacturing cost etc that make this prohibitive but my point is, we want what we buy cheap and in the end, we will buy at the lowest price whether it be Christmas lights or iPads made under labor conditions that are currently drawing media attention.

We cry out over human rights and work conditions but only so long as the price of our consumption does not go up. Several companies have tried to go the "Buy American" route (Wal-Mart comes to mind) but it doesn't seem to stick. The demand for cheaper goods rules as king over all.

Basically China is becoming a major manufacturing force because that's what the American public wants, the cost be damned. For the moment China needs us desperately. They are building a hydro-electric facility that is capable of supplying electricity far beyond any current or near term needs. News commentators have discussed how it seems intended for a developing manufacturing explosion. China needs us for the moment to buy for them so they will have money. As their manufacturing base is established and grows, their own population will have better jobs and more money and they their need for us will greatly diminish. They are on their way to becoming an economic superpower.

Why? Because the American public wants it. The American public wants the cheapest goods. That pressure is felt at the highest levels as CEOs and Boards of Directors approve using Chinese products to ensure profitability of their products. The GM tracker used to be built in Canada with a Chinese built engine. Chevy didn't advertise that fact too loudly in the midst of Mom, Apple Pie, and Chevrolet commercials.

The bottom line? Made in China is a way of life and the only way to change it is for the American public to change their values. Americans need to be willing to pay a little more for American goods. Forget tariffs, tariffs are band-aids, not solutions. the solution is for the American public to demand quality and made in America and I mean as more than a slogan on a wall or a 10 minute advertising commercial It needs to be our way of life because in the end, what is at risk is our way of life.

If you want to see America be the major economic force in the world that it used to be, then we need to demand American quality. We need to be willing to sacrifice the way Americans sacrificed to win the big wars. After all, we are at war right now, a war fought not with tanks and bombs but dollars and yen - and currently, America is losing and the future is not encouraging. It is up to the American public, not the government and politicians to ensure victory.

Why the quality of jobs is suffering.

As I write this, I know the jobs report says unemployment is decreasing just a little bit (hey, its better than going up!). But, I struggle with those reports as they ignore the quality of the jobs people are getting. Far too many people are working part time jobs, in many cases multiple part time jobs. In talking to various people, a lot of us are questioning why people can't get over 24 hours a week. I think I have the answer.

An acquaintance of mine is working part time the same approximate 24 hours a week mentioned above. Recently he was asked if he wanted some extra hours. Wanting the hours and pay and also to show he was a team player, he agree. Later when the schedule came out, he still had 24 hours that week!! In talking to his supervisor, he was told that if they let him get over 24 hours, Obama Healthcare regulations would kick in. I am not well versed in the particulars of Obama Health Care and I don not want this to turn into a political war but it amazes me that the government is trying so hard (supposedly) to create jobs for people (voters) and they have these regulations that are keeping people from getting a Decent job!

So the current situation is employers are hiring people but only for 24 hours a week. BUT they want you to be available 24 hrs a day, 7 days a week. They don't care if you have a second job (as if anybody can survive on 234 hours a week) but THEY want to be top priority over the other employer!!

Meanwhile I myself work 40 hours week at a seasonal job 4 days a week (no benefits, its seasonal) and approximately 18 hours week the other three days (until they cut hours about two weeks ago!!). Again, no benefits.) OK, there is a heath care plan for PT employees but ask anybody that cares about heath care and is PT and they will tell you PT health care plans are worth the paper they are written on - high deductibles, low coverage.

Bottom line, the corporations have made an end run around the health care plan and have circumvented it and in the process kept people from getting a decent job. We have better heath care options when there was no government heath care.

Solution: Fix or eliminate the health care plan but as is it is killing this country. It is keeping people from getting jobs (decent ones at least).

Lament of the Part Time Workers (Part of the Continuing Series: Song of the 99%)

Lament of the Part Time Workers

(Part of the Continuing Series: Song of the 99%)

In the “New Economy” that began in 2008 and had no end in sight as of the Fall of 2011, a new breed of worker has emerged. Perhaps they have always been there but not as noticeable or in as significant numbers. This is the Fully Qualified (Over Qualified) Part-Time worker.

The issue they face today is that Employers will not hire full time workers if it can be avoided. The news media has ben reporting how employers have found that they CAN do more with less and intend to continue to do so even as the stock market and other economic indications improve. (The stock market improves as the economy ahead for companies looks better. If companies can continue to do more and more with less, their profits will improve.) Full time workers get benefits like a good health care plan. Part Time employees get a meager almost worthless health care plan and are usually paid $8 - $9 / hour.

The issue tonight is the hours they are allowed. Most companies make the distinction at approximately 32 hours a week for a period of usually 8 weeks or two months. Now we get to the interesting part. The employee works is given 6 hour shifts four days a week, keeping them safely away from the 32 hour border. At six hours a day, they get one 15 minute break, no meal, and no second break. So for almost a complete workday (minus two hours), the employer gets an almost full day for work with a very small 15 minute break and the employee is gone from home and at work for virtually a almost full workday. Will the employees complain? Not in this economy. The employer has the upper had with a long line of very qualified, (over qualified) people who are eagerly awaiting an opening.

The impact of this is that we have highly skilled people trapped in jobs that do not afford them a survival wage yet the employees are at work for almost as much time as a full time job. You want the economy to improve?

Companies ened to give workers a decent wage and hours that enable them to have health care and other benefits. People can barely afford to buy food and an increasing number are finding they cannot pay their rent or mortgage. Why, the salaries and hours allowed workers will not afford them a decent life. The economy will not improve with concumer spending until the working consumers have funds to spend. Far too many lost their jobs or left their jobs in 2008 unknowing of the impending Great Recession and now they are working meger jobs hoping to find a way to survive tommorrow.

The impact to employers? They are watching in record numbers employees leave after briefly weorking for the company. Employees have ZERO loyalty to a company whose attitude is “you should be gratful for $8/hour and 24 hours.” They leave (but not without having something in hand first) at every opportunity they have to get either better wages, better health care, or better conditions.

WAKE UP 1% and smell the burnt coffee. Lets put it in terms you understand. How much money can you continue to burn training employees until they are up to speed only to have them leave shortly thereafter or even before training begins. If you want employee loyalty, you have to earn it. (to borrow a phrase.)

The problem with this is it either falls on deaf ears (the 1% who honestly seem to be unaware of the situation or the desparation of the workers) or upon the workers who all too painfully already know this story.

Good Luck to the 99.

Issues in Education - Part 2 The Community is Needed.

First let me say that it is easy for many to sit back and bemoan the state of education in this country. Increased credibility is given to those who have taught. I have taught for approximately 8 years. 3 in Georgia public high schools, four in NC public high schools, 1 year in a private NC school, and several semesters at a community college. I have a Master's in Education. Does that prove I am an expert? No, certainly not! But it does give me some credibility to speak to the issues.

The motivation for this post started with a blog in the Atlanta Journal Constitution here: http://blogs.ajc.com/get-schooled-blog/2011/07/01/wrong-message-to-students-barely-good-enough-is-good-enough/?cp=2

Maureen Downey quoted a piece by the esteemed Etienne R. LeGrand, president and co-founder of the W.E.B. DuBois Society, concerning the matter of education and how Good Enough is NOT Good Enough. Please go read this article first before reading my comments. I sincerely hope it moves you as much as it moved me.

Everything she said was dead on target. Some excerpts:

'When we allowed the public education debate to focus on high school graduation as a marker for success, we unwittingly lowered the bar on expectations of what our children can achieve. Thus, high school graduation became the goal, not the springboard, and we have established for students the floor, not the ceiling, of our expected ambition for them."  .... 

"More teacher training is likely on the horizon to ensure teachers know how to teach to these new standards. However, this policy, like most others, incorrectly presumes that students are invested in learning and know how to achieve, and that all they need to compete more aggressively in the classroom is more rigorous standards and better teachers."

An additional thought to the paragraph above. She said, " Policy all too often presumes that students are invested in learning and know how to achieve ... all they need are more rigorous standards and better teachers." I totally agree. Far too may students are not invested in learning. We want to fault the administrators, the teachers, and "the system" and generally anybody in the education or government systems.

BUT, one major issues is that many students are not invested in learning. They do not have the backgrounds that motivates them to learn. In my last years of teaching (I will not return to public education except in the setting of a community college which is entirely different) I saw first hand far too many students who had grown up in an atmosphere that provided little to no motivation for higher education. Too many had parents, grandparents, extended family members, and neighbors who not only did not have an education but did not value it.

Having and education and valuing it are two entirely different things. I have some very dear friends who never went to college but I consider very intelligent and they understood the value of and education enough to ensure their children did on. My parents never went to college. My mother attended a secretarial school and my father attended a technical school, both before WWII. After the war, my father worked at Sears as an appliance repairman, winning numerous awards for the quality of his work. My mother worked at times as a bookkeeper (before calculators and computers!) Neither had a formal education but they valued it. At no time in my early years can I remember a time when it was not a given that I would go to college. (I did, attending one of the four coed, liberal arts, state supported military colleges in the country, North Georgia College in Dahlonega Ga. I currently have two Master's degrees.)

My in-laws did not attend college as WWII interrupted plans but again, my wife and her brothers always knew they would go to college. The oldest would have except that once again war intervened (VietNam). The younger brother went on to college and is now the head of the financial department of a nationwide firm.  My wife has two Master's degrees and is currently finishing her PhD work.

In both cases, the parents (like mine)  did not have a college education but they valued it and they instilled those values into their children. In contrast, today's young people look out and see parents and grandparents, who don't value an education. They look around and see friends who have hopped up cars with wheels worth more than the car, a couple of girls hanging onto them, and a roll of cash in their pocket. Why do they need an education when they can have that? I dealt with that issue among many in public school teaching. Some of them would be better off financially than I was or would be. The problem is they don't see any further down the road than today. They live for today because that is all they have. (It is said that a person doesn't fully understand the consequences of their actions in a cause -effect relationship until they are about 24 to 25 years old.)

What is the solution. Hard to define. There isn't "One Magic"solution. It is a many faceted problem that requires many different simultaneous efforts. Rather than having government programs spend tons of money on new tests and having a continuing revolving door of teachers (2/3s of all teachers quit in their first three years - a statistic true when I taught in the 70's and still true today). We need to quit blaming teachers and let the parents and community shoulder some of the responsibility. Teachers cannot change lives in a few hours. The efforts has to continue at home also. We need local government to get involved in establishing programs that will motivate children. We need businesses to take actions and develop young people. (I know all too well  that the current economy makes that even more difficult).

Children need positive role models. Right now they lack that. As I said in my previous post, we need to re-develop a Master/Apprentice learning environment for you people to learn practical, viable skills that can be applied to living life. Instead, they are taught that Getting By is Good Enough. We need successful role models for youth and American Idol isn't doing it.

Issues in Education Part 1 The Need to Fail.

First let me say that it is easy for many to sit back and bemoan the state of education in this country. Increased credibility is given to those who have taught. I have taught for approximately 8 years. 3 in Georgia public high schools, four in NC public high schools, 1 year in a private NC school, and several semesters at a community college. I have a Master's in Education. Does that prove I am an expert? No, certainly not! But it does give me some credibility to speak to the issues.

The motivation for this post started with a blog in the Atlanta Journal Constitution here: http://blogs.ajc.com/get-schooled-blog/2011/07/01/wrong-message-to-students-barely-good-enough-is-good-enough/?cp=2

Maureen Downey quoted a piece by the esteemed Etienne R. LeGrand, president and co-founder of the W.E.B. DuBois Society, concerning the matter of education and how Good Enough is NOT Good Enough. Please go read this article first before reading my comments. I sincerely hope it moves you as much as it moved me.

Everything she said was spot on target. Some excerpts,

'When we allowed the public education debate to focus on high school graduation as a marker for success, we unwittingly lowered the bar on expectations of what our children can achieve. Thus, high school graduation became the goal, not the springboard, and we have established for students the floor, not the ceiling, of our expected ambition for them."  

Absolutely correct!! When we lower the standards of students to the lowest common denominator (or whatever makes school systems and government look good) we deny our children the chance to succeed. Success s like a coin. On one side is heads (Success) and on the other is tails (failure). You can't have one without the other. You must have the possibility of failure to define success. 

Part of the education problem is the government's policy of "No Child LEft Behind" and its basic premises. (This is not a political issue  but rather an educational issue so please leave political comments at home). The Basic premise of "No Child Left Behind" is that all children are equal and all should have an equal chance to succeed. Yes and No. Yes - All children should have an equal chance to succeed. No - Not all children are equal. 

   All children should be treated with equal respect and their potential recognized. while they are given the chance to catch up if they are behind where they should be at their grade level. 

   Each child is a unique individual with different skills and talents. 

All individuals are just that, individuals. Each person goes through life with a unique set of skills, some by genetics and some by experience. But we are are not equally gifted. A professor at seminary commented to my wife and I that he had observed that students who did well in music also tended to do well in art and other languages. My family pretty much supports that- my wife plays the clarinet, speaks several languages well, and has some artistic ability; my son plays drums (huh, what did you say?), bass guitar, electric guitar, acoustic guitar, has done well in two languages, and has some artistic ability; my daughter knows several languages, writes computer programs (a foreign language if there ever was one), plays the flute, and is a great artist.  Me? I can draw stick figures with a ruler and somebody holding my hand, I got through foreign language courses (to the relief of my professors), and my musical abilities are well known - two sharps and one flat. I have absolutely none of these talents or skills, BUT when it comes to Math, Science, and problem solving, the family turns to me. My first degree was in Physics with a minor in math. When it comes to solving problems, fixing broken things, logic, budgets, etc, - I am the go to guy. 

My point is that we each have our own special set of skills. Even special needs people. I photographed the NC  Special Olympic softball games in Raleigh for the last two years and it really touched me to watch them play. For an amazing story to to my photography blog here: http://hldphotos.blogspot.com/2010/06/special-olympics-of-north-carolina-2010.html This girl wouldn't quit. I haven't seen ball playing like I saw that day in  a lot of professional games. 

So what's wrong with "No Child Left Behind"? Since we aren't all equal with the same talents and abilities, how do we meed a common level of definition of success unless we lower the standard? (This goes back to Ms. LeGrand's idea of Good Enough isn't Good Enough). Over my years of teaching, I observed many students who suffered through math classes but were very talented. One student has always stuck in my mind from the Atlanta area. He was a poor math student but he had a notebook filled with pencil and charcoal drawings that I could only dream of being able to draw. But due to his inability to excel in math, the system called him a failure and he felt it. I tried to encourage him in his art work and to excel at the things he could do well. There is no art test in the system. But with No Child Left Behind, we lower the test requirements (they vary from state to state as each state sets there own level of passing. Does that make sense?) so that everybody can have a chance of passing. If they fail, they keep retaking the test until they pass and the education system receives a good scores for having so many pass. The passing level was 70% and has climbed over the years. Does anybody seriously believe that we will reach the 100% goal of everybody being proficient in math, science, literary arts, etc.? No Child Left Behind does (or at least hopes so)!! 

My question is, "What is wrong with failing?" Some of our greatest inventors found success in their failures or in the failures of others. (Go find a copy of the original "Connections series on PBS - an amazing series on non-linear history and how failures led to successes). Instead of trying to have everybody pass an ambiguous test that has no meaning to many student's future lives, why don't we let the intellectually gifted succeed and let the others fail? 

   Heresy you say? Most other major developed countries in the world do just that. Witness how in Japan and China, we see news coverage of students quietly sitting and studiously learning. Also look at the GRE scores of those students as they enter our educational system. What we don't see are all the children who are not in those those schools. Many do not go through the higher education system, instead they go through the learning system of life. They have to find their successes via other means, some desirable and some not. Some do not pas the academic life but find their successes via other venues such as a trade or skill. 

   With No Child Left Behind, the result is that we lower the levels of competency to the point everybody can pass. The education system really believes that eventually 100% of students will be able to all pass the same proficiency tests and 100 % will graduate from high school. The results of such thinking are shown in Ms. LeGrand's remarks that students are so woefully ill-prepared for college. Of course they are, we lower the standard for everybody to pass. We will not let anybody fail and be left behind. My statement is failing doesn't mean being left behind, it means finding a different road to success. 

Instead of having some students excel academically to lead this nation and others finding other routes of success, we have become obsessed with No Child Left Behind, ensuring all children will be educationally equal when the fact is they are not. 

Academic success in for for everybody. What happened to the Master - Apprentice way of learning? A master of a trade taught their apprentice who, when skilled enough, became a master teacher to somebody else. In the olden days, such a learning occurred for blacksmiths, welders, and many other trades. Today, to become a skilled worker , you must go to school. Schools have become the singular gateway for all learning and advancement. Schools will teach all and all will learn - to the minimum level. 

We are denying our children success in life at any level with the current course of education. We must let some fail and others succeed. To sound like something from the 60's, some must fail to find themselves. Failure can often times be a most valuable learning experience. 

Why America's Economy isn't Improving

OK, let me start out stating I don't pretend to know all the answers or even most but I have had years of management as an officer in the military as well as working lately in the retail sector. I watch the economic news and it appalls me. To spoil the suspense, the simple answer is CORPORATE GREED. Some examples:

1)  Heinz 4th quarter profits climbs, will cut 800 to 1,000 jobs ( ~ May 27th, 2011)  http://www.wral.com/business/story/9646974/

Their world wide expansion has given them approximately 16% profit for the 4th quarter but to "continue its profitable path" it will cut raise prices and cut jobs! Five factories will be closed worldwide. HEY, WAKE UP, the employees you lay off are your customers and your on the ground marketing reps. Do they know there is a world wide recession going on. Laying off workers and raising prices for the sake of profits and shareholders is counter productive to long term recovery and health for all companies.

2) Banks - Banks received a lot of government rescue funding to enable them to continue operating and prevent an economic meltdown. Now that the government (of the people) rescued the banks, you would think they would go along with the efforts to help the people that rescued them as so many face foreclosure of their homes. Nope! The government did it function of providing for the welfare of the people and developed a plan to help so many people caught in the housing collapse a they watched their homes rapidly become worth less than they owed. (Whether you like the govt plan is besides the point right now, this is focused on the corporations and banks)
   So what are the banks doing? Are they helping out? You got to be kidding! http://www.wral.com/business/story/9706065/  (~ June 9, 2011)

Three big banks - ( Wells Fargo, Bank of America, and JP Morgan Chase) have failed to do their part adequately. Of the anticipated 3 -4 million homeowners that were anticipated to receive help, the figure runs at about 607,000! quite a contrast (disappointment is abetter word). To many try to make the a political debate between the Democrats and the Republican ( I don't like either for what its worth). But no this is about Corporate GREED.

What is the government doing? About the only thing they can do, withhold money from the banks for not doing their job. Apparently the banks incorrectly determined people as ineligible when they really were! Hey you don't think the banks want to give up profits for the sake of people who will be their future customers?

BTW - It is a fact that the biggest factor in the housing market's problems is the huge number of foreclosures.

3) Corporations won't spend money to create jobs and thereby improve the economy. In an article about the decline of American's equity in their homes. http://www.wral.com/business/story/9709005/  (down from 61% in 2001 to 38% in the first quarter of 2011, approximately the lowest level since WWII) a comment was made that " ... Corporations are still hoarding cash." When companies don't spend money, money isn't spent and jobs aren't created. The government had anticipated almost 1/4 million jobs would be created in May 2011 (the average for the last three months and in a recovering economy, a valid projection). Instead only 54,000 jobs were created.

4) Corporations keep shipping our jobs overseas. I have long said that "When we export our jobs overseas, we import their poverty." This isn't meant as a slam against any particular country or ethnic groups but a simple matter that when we ship our jobs overseas, we import their poverty. corporations keep sending jobs to other countries where labor is cheap and wonder why people here don't have jobs or money to spend on their products.

So let's summarize - Corporate profits are up but to maintain those profits, they are laying off people (their customers). Banks don't want to give up or reduce their profits. And corporations have a more than adequate surplus of cash but they don't want to spend (invest) it. When they do spend money, they spend it in other countries instead of our own.

So instead of a recovering economy we have rising unemployment up to 9.1% College graduates are working at supermarkets and gas stations if at all. I know of a Teaching Fellow ( a program that provides four years of education in exchange for four years of teaching). These folks aren't slouches but I know one that can't find a teaching job at all! The news a while back discussed how many teaching fellows are shocked at the difficulty they are having finding a job, they felt they were almost guaranteed a job, and in the past they virtually were. But local governments have had reduce spending.

Did you notice that the common theme is business won't spend or invest in America? In the past, consumer spending pulled the country out of recession but this time the money is in the hands of business that won't let do.

The problem isn't the partisan politics in Washington but the corporate world's inability to let go of the money and spend. In short - CORPORATE GREED.

And the Clouds aren't heard by the Mice (But this mouse still squeaks)

I've talked about the mice (workers) inability to be heard by management (the ones in the clouds) in order to make needed changes they perceive.  But the problem goes both ways (but not the fault of the mice). Sometimes those in the clouds and atop ivory pillars cannot hear the mice down below. Remembering that the mice (workers) see the problems and have solutions, why don't the cloud people hear the mice? Its not that the mice have quit squeaking (although often they have given up and accept the status quo) the problem often is that those in the middle don't permit them to be heard.

How often have you said something to a supervisor with a idea to make a difference and it goes up in smoke? All too often you say. No surprise. If store level management and all those between the bottom (mice) and the top (clouds) allowed those ideas to go to the top they might have to give credit to those below them, thereby weakening their hold on power.

Is it no wonder that people give up trying and have no sense of ownership for the care and future of the company they work for and is it no wonder that the top management has no respect for those at the bottom who "don't understand"? The mice understand all too well, they just can't be heard.

The answer is found in the Leadership / Management Principles of William Demming. Demming was part of the group that went to Japan at the end of WWII to help reconstruct Japan's economy. After dinner he taught the Japanese how to build a quality product using the statistical quality control methods he learned at the phone company he had worked at.

Never heard of William Demming? No surprise, although the Demming award is one of the most revered awards for industry in the world, only one American company has ever won the award - Ford Motor Company for the design of the original Taurus, a best seller for years.

What does Demming have to do with the mice and the cloud people? Part of his teaching was to have companies WORK TOGETHER to achieve better products. If a company A ships cans to company B for B to put their products in and 10% of the containers are damaged, who pays? Not company A! They have built the cost of that 10% into their charge to company B which in turn is passed along to the consumers (you and me).
   Demming proposed that the tow companies work together to investigate and eliminate to or significantly reduce the 10% damage rate. Maybe B has bas requirement specs. Maybe A has problems the workers see but the management at the top don't have a clue about.

Does this really happen today? YOU BET! I opened a container of 6 products at the store where I work. All six products were unusable. Two were broken apart at a corner (maybe shipping) but the other four had the SAME CORNER glued together in a poorly joined seam. I mentioned to a supervisor that we ought to pass the word back up the chain to let them know there was a quality control issue. It comment died in moments. Nothing was done and today that assembly line for that particular product is happily churring out products that may or may not be unusable.

Why are other countries knocking our socks off literally as they produce quality products better than us?

Squeak Squeak, Squeak.

The squeaking Mice aren't heard in the Clouds.

I recently had the opportunity (?) to change work endeavors as my former employer declared bankruptcy and closed many stores including the one I worked at. So off I go finding a new employer. Luckily I found one fairly quickly and they will offer health care after 3 months. So once again I began the "learn the new job and its nuances" routine and leads us to this post.
    I find it amazing that so many new employees who have a depth of previous work experience enter a new job and perceive so man things that, to put it bluntly, are craziness and need to be changed but the people there aren't doing anything to make the needed changes.
    There are several basic groups of people working for a company, but for purposes of this discussion, I will limit it to three.
(A) High level management - The ones who are waaayy up there, and so I say they live in the clouds.
People that have been there for 6 - 10 years either can't see the problem or have forgotten it. (Or don't care any longer)
(B) Store level managers - You think they are "empowered" to make decisions but my experience in retail is teaching me that they generally have little power to make decisions. They are required to make sales goals and percentages and make sure this item is displayed on that table, etc. (more on that later).
(C) The Mice - The folks who work the registers, that make things happen, and interface with the customers one on one.

- The mice know what is wrong with a company and how it could be improved. The problem is their squeaky voices aren't heard in the clouds. Their voices are either filtered out by middle management or are simply too far away from the clouds to be heard.
- Don't believe me, so to any retail store, any one, and ask some of the employees if they wish their store would be an episode of "Undercover Boss" (A television series where the boss goes to work at the store level  as a new person. Frequently, their supervisor "firs them for not being good enough. At the end of the show, the CEO reveals who he is to the entire company.)

- Some illustrations from my previous place of employment at a book store. Consider the approach of the 30th anniversary of John Lennon's death, Dec 8th, 1980. The magazines began putting stories about it on the cover, newspapers and music periodicals ran stories and we had a book sitting way back on the bottom shelf titled, " Dec 18, 1980". I had picked it up and looked at it a while back and had realized this was a time sensitive book. After Dec 18th, it would be just another book about Lennon, at least until another 10 year anniversary. Soooo, I went to the store manager and mentioned how we ought to have this on display due to the time factor involved and how we could ride the publicity generated by others. He agreed but higher level management dictated what table had which book on display and he could do nothing. Later he said we could put a few on the information desk as there were no directives concerning what could be placed there. I was off the 17th and 18th but when I came back, the books were gone. Seems somebody didn't know what the boss had told me and they "corrected the situation" by placing the books back on the shelf. Few were sold, most of the books were returned to the publisher. The Store Manage had no real authority and communications within the store was poor.
 - Frequently the workers (the mice) would talk about how the people making decisions at the top seems to have no awareness of what went on in a store. We frequently wondered if any upper level management had ever worked in a store. (It would turn out later when the chain declared bankruptcy that they had hired 5 CEOs in 4 years and none of them had any bookstore experience! The mice were not surprised.)
 - Once somebody with their head in the clouds decided the way to turn the store round was to insert think paper advertizing banners in the bookcases. The paper form was folded into an L shape and inserted under the bottom of a shelf of books with the other part of the L hanging down to promote sales. The problem the mice quickly realized was that they hung down so far that the stiff paper scraped the tops of books being removed from the shelf below and in the case of hardbacks, damaging the cover jackets. It took the mice about 10 seconds to see what a dumb idea this was and the problems it created. Shame was the mice weren't heard in the clouds. The mice mumbled about how if they had talked to a mouse, they could have showed them the problems easily and quickly but the people in the clouds didn't care. So the idea lived on until the next store saving idea was announced (and there would be more new "ideas").

- At the new job, I was  being trained on the register and how to input the rewards card info. Ready for the dumb part? Log in and scan the first item. By this time a message has popped up asking if they are a rewards member. Now I have a choice, enter y or n. If I enter "N" it goes back to ringing up the sale. If I hit "Y" it goes on to ringing up the sale!! To enter they have a rewards card, I have to hit F1 and then enter their phone number etc. BUT WAIT! wouldn't it make more sense to have the system go to the reward card data entry screen if I enter "Y"? Everybody says so but nothing we mice can do about it. My trainer has been there 10 years, she just shrugs and accepts things the way they are.
  - Now are you beginning to see the problem. The mice on the floor see the problem and most likely have many good ideas to make the company run better and achieve the goals the company is trying so hard to achieve but the heads in the clouds.

-  A friend that works for an international IT firm currently laying off a large number of people tells me similar stories.

The bottom line? The worker mice can see the problems but after time they are beat down and tire of trying to fix the problems and so instead they simply move along, drawing a paycheck and the people in the clouds wonder why they can't motivate the mice to care. Is it any wonder mice don't respond to 401 bonuses and other long term incentives? They see how the store and entire firm si run and their inability to make changes. Its easier to simply go with the flow.

Defining Friends

I have had occasion to reflect on friends and what the term means. Or perhaps I have come to question what it means today as we live in a digital age. (No, my recent posts and this do not mean I am anti-digital; rather I am looking at the changes on our lives.) When you go to fill out a job application (as all too many of us have had to do recently) they almost always ask for personal references and we think of our friends. For those who have never moved far from home, you probably have a multitude of friends who you can name. For those who have had to move a lot, especially great distances from where we grew up, the issue becomes a little tougher. Many of our friends we haven't seen face to face in years and that is what led me to this introspection for friendship.

Today, friends do not necessarily have to be somebody who we have ever met. I have lots of "friends" on Facebook that I have never met or talked to. A few I have swapped an email or private message with but many I know only through the Facebook page yet I "talk" with them all the time. On the other hand, I have friends I grew up with that due to distances an other factors, I haven't encountered in years.
As I reflect on the job application procedure mentioned above, I can't help but think about who could actually speak to my character and personality - my friends I haven't seen in years? - my Facebook friends who have never met me or worked with me yet "talk" with more frequently than anybody else? I have one friend who I have mutual interests with and enjoy chatting with on-line, yet I've never met but I can tell you all about his efforts to find a job and how it has taken him overseas to various parts of the world and he could speak to some part of my life as well, but recommend me to an employer? Hardly. Besides, I don't know his home address or phone number.

Friends used to be somebody you knew well and you would drop everything for if they needed help and they would do the same for you. I have some old childhood friends that if I could find them, I would do whatever  today.

An interesting sociological effect of modern living. In the past, we would come home, eat, and then go out and sit on the porch and watch the kids play and maybe talk to the neighbors across the way. We would go for a walk as the evening cooled down. Nobody wanted to stay inside where it was hot as central air wasn't widespread yet. Today, we drive home in our air conditioned vehicles, open the garage door by remote control, go inside after we deactivate the alarm system, and then settle down to to our HD widescreen television with surround sound or stereo system) and we are in for the night.

How many of you can name the first and last names of the three neighbors to the left and right of your domicile (apt or house) and at least four to five on the other side of the street. (adapted for geographic layout of your neighborhood)? Not many I suspect.

The point of all this is not a negative outlook on friendship (although it may have sounded so, not meant to be) but rather a call to go out and rediscover life and people living around us. Perhaps imagine a block party before the weather gets too hot, and everybody bringing various favorite dishes and cooking out on the grill in the middle of the street. Who knows, you might makes some new friends.

(P.S. Separated by time and distance from old friends? Perhaps a letter, handwritten at that for the personal touch, would do the trick. Be careful, those handwritten letters won't have red underlining under misspelled words!!

The Economy and Workers Work Ethic and Loyalty for the Future

As the economy continues to stagnate, I sit and reflect on the long term effects of worker-employer relations. The news has been filled with the continuing strife that escalates everyday. The case of the Wisconsin workers and the struggle over bargaining rights is just one small example.

I think back to how in the past workers sacrificed for the good of the company because they knew if they took care of the company, the company would take care of them. The unspoken benefit that many workers enjoyed was job security. Back in the 70s as the economy was going through tough times, the workers at
    Delta airlines took up a collection to buy a jet for Delta as a sign of their faith in the company. Surely after such a demonstration, life would continue to be good. Not so. Today many companies that have been known in the past for never laying off are now doing just that. Oh some may not call it layoffs, it may come under some other euphemism such as strategic resizing and early retirements but the result is the same, a worker out of a job, usually unplanned for and unexpected.
    The US military is a prime case. It was know for staying in 20 years, keeping your nose clean, doing a good job and you could retire in 20 years with half pay. (OK, technically not half pay but half base pay, not counting housing and food allowances in.) And that worked well but then then late 80s and early 90s happened. Officers entering as Second Lieutenants in the early 80s had been told (some at least) that the military had hired 230% of what they needed but "don't worry, it will handle itself by attrition." Well, it didn't and so Captains not making major were forced out of the service. Later when Lt Colonels were told they could not stay past 24 years, they yelled and moaned much the same things the Captains had said earlier. "It was unfair! It was a breach of a verbal contract!" and so on. The bottom line, not only did a lot of military learn that they had sacrificed many things to no avail for their careers but their families did also. I dare say that if you look at the children of some of those officers, you will find very jaded children who will not consider the military other than as a short term job, not a career.

And in fact that is exactly the point of this post. As people and their families have sacrificed in so many ways, they have learned that it was of no benefit to having a long term career. The minute times get tough, the layoffs begin. News in the past years has reported that even Japan suffers from this came issue as companies that have never laid off have done so.

To make people even more jaded, look at the news today from USAToday 4/1/11,  how  CEO compensation packages are  skyrocketing while workers struggle with little to no pay raises and many are looking for any type of work. I dare say few of us have not experienced or at least know of instances where the boss got a nice raise while workers were told pay raises were not possible. My wife experienced this back while the country endured President Carter's Whip Inflation Now (WIN) program that asked that raises be limited. Moral is plummeting as workers are hanging on by a thread and the top levels are receiving generous compensations.

Will it be any surprise that as the economy improves (someday) that workers will leave for better jobs in droves? But more importantly. As workers go to their new jobs, they will no longer accept the being told, "when things improve ..." or we have an excellent retirement package. Workers will not look for retirement from a company, they know they will most likely not stay there long enough. Workers will increasingly demand compensation up-front. No longer will deferred compensation be accepted.

A quick side tale to illustrate part of the problem. In the Air Force, we were presented a briefing and video about how one's values and motivations are fairly well established about the age of ten. The person who was ten during the Great Depression is motivated strongly by money. A person who was ten during WWII is motivated by patriotism and sacrifice for the good of all. A person born in the 60s is motivated by "what's in it for me?" Want to drive the 20 person crazy? Go to the store in a taxi to buy something and hop out telling the driver to wait and leave the meter running!!
How does this scenario play out in terms of this discussion? A BIG contract is awarded to the company. The Depression era boss tells his managers they have to get this done quickly and if they do they will be a good bonus in their checks. The managers who lived through the war are almost insulted, they don't care about the money, they will do it for the good of the company. And they go tell the workers who look up at them blankly and ask, "what's in it fur us?" (besides money?) All three generations have failed to motivate the others.

So the bottom line for all this is - how will companies hire and motivate people who have been treated like they have for so long? Corporations and management may get away with this once but workers will not accept this on an on-going basis. Employees will go to new jobs with an expectation of not being there for the long term and will work accordingly. People are tired of having to "do more with less", "working smarter", etc. They realize they have had to do the work of several people without the compensation. In this economy, that is the way it is. But as the economy improves, watch out for the change in employee attitudes. Don't be surprised that people have a completely different attitude about their work ethic.

Opportunity to recover American jobs?

Recent news following the earthquake and tsunami in Japan (March 2011) has produced interesting business impacts. The following comments are not "Japan bashing" but are intended to provoke Americans to reevaluate priorities in terms of their shopping and for businesses, their production priorities.
When the freighters full of cargo where struck by the tsunami, countless millions of dollars of merchandise (Televisions, DVD players, automobiles, etc) were lost. When the ports will clear and when ships will be available to transport the goods is anybody's guess. In the meantime, factories in Japan have either been destroyed or damaged with many being forced to suspend production due to either internal conditions or the conditions generated by the power and living conditions. Now reports are surfacing that other manufacturers in other locations are beginning to suffer from lack of parts and supplies made in Japan. The impact of this disaster continues to widen.
Some examples:
A) Apple Computer reports that the glue used to hold iPads together has been impacted by the Japan earthquake and tsunami. They are reportedly seeking to find alternative suppliers that meet their standards and requirements.
B) Ford Motor Company has instructed dealers to temporarily not take orders for certain shades of black and red as the colors are produced in Japan and, yep you guessed it, are not available for an indefinite time.
C) News reports that Toyota dealers have raised their prices on Prius vehicles due to a shortage of supply.
D) Various other electronic manufacturers have had to cut production and as a result prices on those items have risen (not necessarily as a decision in Japan but more by suppliers and distribution people here.

Now would seem a good time for American manufacturers to regain some of the market share they have lost to Japan. Why can we not make the glue for iPads? Why can we not make the paint for Ford (and other facilities as well)? Why do we not make electronics in this country? (The last television make in North America was Curtis Mathis, made in Canada, which went out of business years ago.

The root of the problem (if there is to be a singular source) can be found in American greed. Americans want the cheapest price for a product. On the surface, who doesn't want the best price? But the best price comes at a price itself. As we bought goods made overseas at cheaper prices, we lost our jobs and manufacturing facilities as we shipped our jobs overseas. A basic tenant was ignored - "When we export our jobs overseas, we import their poverty". We have continued to buy foreign products (when other countries make exporting our goods to them difficult if not impossible) at the cost of our economy and our jobs. We want cheap televisions and now no television is made in our country and so it goes for other goods.

Who has not heard somebody complain about tech support representative from another country that could not speak English well or drove them insane with the "thank you very much" and repetition of any and all information stated? Recent news reports indicate that the Philippines now have more American jobs than India (well known for its IT tech support for companies like Dell Computer).

The problem now is that we aren't getting the cheap prices we wanted! Although temporarily (maybe) as products made in Japan become scarcer, prices are going up. We are already at the mercy of the middle east for oil (with gas skyrocketing due to recent middle east turmoil) and now a large majority of our goods are going up in prices due to shortages in production in Japan. We wanted cheap DVD players and televisions but now the prices are going up because they come primarily form a country hit by a natural disaster.

Here is the question - Why can't our paint companies make the paint Ford needs or the glue Apple needs? Is it so unique that we can't make it or is the problem it can't be made as cheaply? One, we aren't going to continue to see prices from Japan at the levels we have had in the past. Second, considering the unemployment in this country, why can't we stimulate the economy by manufacturing here? The problem is a double whammy, corporations have to satisfy stockholders (and their own paychecks) by producing their products at the lowest possible price; and consumers demand the lowest possible price. Forgotten in this is the fact that when a company lays of employees, they lay off people who buy their product. When Ford lays off employees, they lay off people that buy and promote their product.

We can make the best televisions (or anything else) in the world. We could make great paints and glues. We have the technological know how we just need companies willing to step up and do it; and we need consumers who will buy home grow local products. Remember that the cheapness of many products made overseas is done on the backs (figuratively) and at the cost of the health and in some cases the lives (literally) of workers overseas who have to live and work in conditions we would never consider or permit by law. Recently CNN carried a report about the 1911 NEW York Triangle fire that cost 146 lives due to working conditions. The question is, are well willing to make and buy at a fair price or will we continue to export out jobs, import their poverty, and buy at the cheapest price (and sometimes quality - ref drywall, dog food, etc. from the far east). WE CAN DO IT. WILL WE?

American Society's Lack of Digital Ethics - The Death of Brick and Mortar stores?

Some of us can remember before the World Wide Web (that's what www stands for, for those who didn't know). There was Prodigy, Compuserve and one other I forget. They were not connected. Then suddenly, www appeared and our lives began changing - more and more rapidly. The world shrank quicker and quicker as the web expanded. But unfortunately laws and ethics did not keep up. Today laws concerning the digital life are woefully behind the times and so are ethics. 

Today brick and mortar stores are rapidly becoming the showcase for on-line stores. Sometimes brick and mortar stores and on-line stores complement each other but other times they stand opposed to each other. 

In the case of banks, there is no "physical product" there are only services - loans, checking accounts, ATM cards, which do have a physical aspect but in the end they are non-physical services. As services, brick and mortar can compete effectively with on-line banks. On-line service can point to brick and mortar operations as needed and can reduce the need for brick and mortar without eliminating them.

Where physical products are involved, brick and mortar are at a disadvantage unless America develops a "digital ethic". Some examples: 

A) E-Readers did not sink Borders; the lack of American Digital Ethics was the larger player. Borders had various problems and all contributed to their bankruptcy and wherever the future takes them but e-readers were only a small part of the problem. The bigger issue they and many other face is the lack of a digital ethic in America. Witness the person who comes in with a Kindle e-reader, which they use because they have poor eyesight and can enlarge the print with his e-reader. They won't be able to buy or download any books from Borders because the Kindle does not use the widely accepted "e-Pub" standard. (at the present, Kindles can only download from Amazon, they cannot read the more widespread standard of "e-pub" books. Borders, Barnes & Noble, and Apple all use e-pub.). The person comes in asking questions and discussing how they hate shopping on-line for books. They like to look at the cover colors and turn the pages. (On-line stores offer only limited browsing of books.) The store clerks assists them and then they leave the store to go home and buy their books on line. E-books are cheaper because they don't require the facilities, space, and personnel support that brick and mortar books require. For e-books, you simply add another hard drive to the computer network and voila, more e-books are available. And the extra hard drives don't even have to be in the same location, spare hard drive space from other locations can be used. 

B) Electronics stores (especially camera stores) suffer the same issue. Go to any local electronics place, especially one that specializes in digital cameras. People come in and try out the cameras, examine the size of the bags and the layout of the pockets inside. And when their decision is made, they go home and buy the same product on-line at one of the well-known on-line stores. (If you are a camera person, you know the two I have in mind.) Electronic departments in stores like Target and Wal-Mart are not as aware of this as their workers tend to not have the personal investment in the store that "mom and pop" local stores have. That and they tend to stock the lower price end of products. The specialty stores will have the higher quality products. (Try buying a 200-400mm zoom lens for a digital camera at the aforementioned stores and you will see what I mean.) One large photo chain told me they do not want people browsing Brick and Mortar and then coming to them, they consider it unethical. Nice to see some integrity. That's why I use them. But when I have been in a brick and mortar camera store I always try to buy something to justify my time there. 

C) Car Dealers are just beginning to experience this ethical dilemma. A person comes in and test-drives a vehicle. They ask all sorts of questions. They come back and test drive some more. They come back with their spouses and test drive again. Then they go home and send out emails to a three state area soliciting prices on the vehicle of their choice. Then the dealer with a small building, little overhead, maybe only one salesperson, and one or two mechanics gets the bid with his low price. He doesn't worry about a long-term relationship with the customer, they live so far away they will probably never come back. If there are any issues with the vehicle, the customer will most likely be on the doorstep of the dealer they test drove first thing with a loud complain about service. The customer should at least include the test drive dealership on their email list. 

Is it unreasonable to expect people to spend in stores they shop in and use the resources of (If you operate a McDonald's think of the people that come in and use the restrooms and leave without buying food.)? No! Germany has an ethic that when I was last there that would address this issue. If you want to see an irritate store clerk, go in and ask a lot of questions about products in their store and then walk out without buying anything. They don't do that but the American visitors do. They don't mind you looking but if you take up their time, they expect you to buy something. 

Brick & Mortar stores cannot survive being a showcase for on-line stores. If the trend continues, we can simply close down the malls and turn them into on-line showcases with only one of each item for sale. You can see the color and inspect the texture but then you have to order from the on-line store at the local kiosk that is sure to be there and wait for delivery. 

Brick and mortar stores operate with facilities designed to make the shopping experience enjoyable and sale staffs that when trained properly can offer assistance finding the right items and offer recommendations.  (Remember buying a printer for your computer and finding out they didn't include the cable to connect to the computer?) 

Bottom line, if you shop at a brick and mortar, buy something while you are there. 

Rules of this blog

Not a lot of rules:

1) No over the top comments/responses about politics or religion - respect that we call come from diverse backgrounds. Respect each other and each others right to have differing views. 

2) No foul language comments/responses- this is to be a blog viewed by all ages.